Jun. 25, 2013

Written by

Under the Dome - The Blog

Many state and local elected officials reacted strongly and negatively Tuesday to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case that served to invalidate Section 4 of the federal Voting Rights Act.

The Act, which provides federal protection of voters to avoid disenfranchisement, mostly states in the southeastern part of the nation. In California, the Act covers three of the 58 counties, one of which is Monterey County, officials said.

“The Supreme Court’s decision flies in the face of the clear evidence we continue to see of efforts to suppress the vote in minority communities across the country. It is devastating that the Court’s conservative majority would strike down a central provision of the law that has protected the voting rights of all Americans for nearly a half century, and was reauthorized by Congress almost unanimously just seven years ago. I’ll be working with my Senate colleagues to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that every American can participate fully in our democracy.”

More closer to Monterey County, U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, (D-Del Mar) said:

“The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to turn the clock back on equality by delivering a major setback to voting rights in this county. Monterey County, which I represent, is one of only three counties in California that is covered by the Voting Rights Act. For almost five decades, the Act has provided protections for minority voters who otherwise might have been disenfranchised. By removing key provisions of the law, the Court has re-opened the doors to the types of discrimination that persisted before 1965. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act by a wide, bipartisan margin. Hopefully, we can again come together to pass an updated version of the section the Court struck down. As elected officials, it is our duty to remove any barriers to voting to ensure that every citizen’s vote is counted and their voice heard.”

(Page 2 of 2)

State Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) echoed his colleagues:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 undermines Congress’ efforts to combat voter disenfranchisement and poses a serious threat to voter equality across the nation,” Alejo said in a prepared statement. Voter disenfranchisement is not just a thing of the past, but a current reality that still persists today in places like my Assembly District’s Monterey County. I urge Congress to act swiftly and accordingly in order to ensure voter equality by passing a new bill to determine which states would be covered by using updated data sources. ...Without Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5 is without significance. There will no longer be protection in place to prevent the purging, packing, gerrymandering, and redistricting of citizen votes.”

Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is considered a historical piece of legislation that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans.

Mirroring the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

In 2002, Gov. Gray Davis signed into law the California Voting Rights Act.

The California law expands on the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 by making it easier for minority groups to prove that their votes are being diluted by "at-large" elections.

Unlike the federal Voting Rights Act, the state Act does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate a specific geographic district where a minority is concentrated enough to establish a majority. This makes it easier for minority voters to sue local governments and eliminate at-large elections.

Up until 1988 Salinas’ City Council was elected on an at-large basis. Following in the steps of Watsonville the Salinas council voted to change to district elections in December of that year. The city’s first district elections were successfully held six months later in June 1989.